- Jun 16, 2018
- 8,812
- 15,805
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
What is your evidence for this claim?It is happening around the world.
The study you posted (which you didn't bother to read) is localised to Germany (and specific locations in Germany at that).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is your evidence for this claim?It is happening around the world.
Declines from observations in the US, Netherlands, UK and Australia. All of which I posted.What is your evidence for this claim?
The study you posted (which you didn't bother to read) is localised to Germany (and specific locations in Germany at that).
The article about the Australian 'decline' stated this:Declines from observations in the US, Netherlands, UK and Australia. All of which I posted.
Why are anecdotal observations insufficient? They are observations, they simply have a larger error bar than a controlled study. You never did say what p-value you needed for something to be considered evidence.The article about the Australian 'decline' stated this:
no definitive studies have been conducted on the decline in Christmas beetles
So you are intentionally conflating anecdotal observations with scientific studies.
All in order to defend 'climate change'.
This is sad stuff.
Because it is supposed to be climate science.Why are anecdotal observations insufficient?
You would be shocked what has consisted as science for most of history - Victorian era science, including that developed by Darwin, consisted of little more than anecdotal data. The statistical, peer reviewed data only came in the mid 20th century. Does that invalidate say, Boyles law? No.Because it is supposed to be climate science.
A climate change alarmist arguing against the importance of the scientific method.You would be shocked what has consisted as science for most of history - Victorian era science, including that developed by Darwin, consisted of little more than anecdotal data.
It is clear you have zero idea about what the scientific method is. There are three requirements for something to be scientific, in order of importance:A climate change alarmist arguing against the importance of the scientific method.
What a surprise.
Says the guy who believes that anecdotal evidence is scientific.It is clear you have zero idea about what the scientific method is.
It is.Says the guy who believes that anecdotal evidence is scientific.
Probably because they haven’t read Eric Schlosser’s chilling history of nuclear weapons safety “Command and Control” or Daniel Ellsberg’s recent “The Doomsday Machine” both of which will have you waking up every morning thanking dog almighty that yet again we haven’t all been vaporised in a nuclear weapons accident.This goes to a point I made before.
When I was in school in the 80's, we were told that the world would be destroyed by nuclear war, and that the U.S.A. and Russia would fire weapons at each other, and the world would be turned in radioactive mush.
Yet it didn't happen. And we have never heard of it since.
Probably because they haven’t read Eric Schlosser’s chilling history of nuclear weapons safety “Command and Control” or Daniel Ellsberg’s recent “The Doomsday Machine” both of which will have you waking up every morning thanking dog almighty that yet again we haven’t all been vaporised in a nuclear weapons accident.
Probably because they haven’t read Eric Schlosser’s chilling history of nuclear weapons safety “Command and Control” or Daniel Ellsberg’s recent “The Doomsday Machine” both of which will have you waking up every morning thanking dog almighty that yet again we haven’t all been vaporised in a nuclear weapons accident.
My point is that a nuclear weapons accident is the greatest risk of all, given that there is a natural desire to want to have one's arsenal at the most ready state possible, and safeguards do get put aside with that mentality. The number of (fortunately) unprimed nuclear bombs that have simply fallen out of US bombers is cause enough for great concern. As Schlosser points out in his book, he, an American, focusses on the US situation, which is supposed to be one of the more fastidious nuclear cultures. God knows what Russia, or some of the other lesser players are sweeping under the carpet.See, I think a nuclear war is a more immediate danger than climate change, which won't affect anyone living today.
People focus on climate change, let don't seem to worry that Trump or Kim Jon Un could send off missiles at a moment's notice, and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it.
Says the guy who believes that anecdotal evidence is scientific.
I believe the theories exist.Do you believe in evolution? Gravity?
Yeah, I don't get why the childless care about climate change.Climate change activists:
"We need to save the planet for our children's children's children..."
Also climate change activists:
"Stop having children"
OP sounds like an entitled boomer.
OP perfectly encapsulates the selfishness and entitlement of people who were adults in the 20th century
OP perfectly encapsulates the selfishness and entitlement of people who were adults in the 20th century
OP sounds like a selfish campaigner.
OP sounds like an entitled boomer.
Are you one of those people who will only do something if they will personally benefit from it? They are pretty terrible people.
Reading Murdochs press and any thing paid for by the Koch Brothers will have this effect